SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 10220, 14 December 1893, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANKRUPTCY. Wednesday, Deo. 13. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denniaton.) A# BOWER (AI'BKLLANT) V. THE OFFICIAL assignee, timaru (respondent). Mr Joynt, with him Mr Hay, for the appellant; the Hon Downie Stewart, with him Mr Kinnerney, for the respondent. Mr Downie Stewart continued his argument, and submitted that the appeal should be dismissed upon grounds which he quoted at length, and cited numerous authorities for, Mr Kinnerney followed. Mr Joynt replied, and his Honor took time to consider. J. o. BOWER (appellant) V. THE OFFICIAL assignee, timaru (respondent). Mr Joynt, with him Mr Hay, for the appallcrnt; the Hon Downie Stewart, with him Mr Kinnerney, for the respondent. This was a case between Mrs Bower and the Official Assignee of the insolvent estate of D. M. Eoss, Timaru. Mrs Bower, who resided in Scotland, had given Rosa power of attorney, and had sent him certain large sums of money to be invested in freehold property on her behalf. He had made an agreement mortgaging hia freehold estate to Mrs Bower to secure these moneys. This was the subject-matter of the present appeal. Eoas, having-fraudu-lently applied Mrs Bower’s moneys to hia own purposes, had been adjudicated a bankrupt and had handed over all his documents, and among them the agreement, to his eolieitora prior to serving a term of nine months’ imprisonment for a breach of the Bankruptcy Aot. Under the agreement, Mrs Bower claimed the freehold estate of Rosa from tho hands of the Official Assignee. The point of the case was whether the agreement had been made and signed at a date sufficiently early before the bankruptcy to preclude the idea of fraudulent preference. Tho affidavit of Rose was to the effect that the instrument had been made before tho eve of his adjudication as d bankrupt, but at the trial of the case Judge Ward had held that the document bad been anta-datad, and had decided in favour of the Official Assignee. Mrs Bower, now appealed against this decision. After argument, his Honor reserved his decision. CIVIL SITTINGS. ROGERS V. ROGERS. His Honor gave judgment in the case of Rogers v. Rogers, which was a will suit between tho children of the deceased testator Rogers and the widow. The will had left tho whole of the property, valued at £2OOO, to the wife, to be administered for the benefit of tho children, and at her death the other members of the family to act as executors in regard to the residue. The question of tho case had been whether the widow, tho defendant, should have the absolute control of the property,, or whether she should only aot as executrix on behalf of the children, the plaintiffs. Hia Honor, in the course of his judgment, said that the evident intention of the testator was that his wife should have tho disposal' of the property for tho benefit of the children, and that if any remained at her death the children should have it. He bad assumed that Ms wife would dispose of the property in the beat interests of tho children, and such assumption showed that he had intended that she should have the disposal of it. His Honor quoted authorities on oases reported in the. Law Reports, Chancery Division, and showed that the current of modern decisions tended towards the construction of the will as contended by the widow. He concluded that the widow should take | absolute control over the property under the will, and ordered that costs of all parties should bo borne by the estate. Mr Wilding appeared for the children, and Mr Bruges for the widow.